Supernatural Evidence?

[Astreja]

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

Only if it can be examined according to the same criteria as regular evidence.  It's not much good if one has to make up a whole new set of rules for it.

[Arkilogue]

If something is real, then it is natural.  Example: The Higgs boson is not "supernatural" just because we don't fully understand it.
Supernatural is nonexistent by definition.
If something "violates" a natural law, then our description of the natural phenomenon is simply inaccurate/incomplete.

If Yahweh exists, even outside of what we call "time and space", then Yahweh is natural.

So...science of the gaps?

[cactus]

If something is real, then it is natural.  Example: The Higgs boson is not "supernatural" just because we don't fully understand it.
Supernatural is nonexistent by definition.
If something "violates" a natural law, then our description of the natural phenomenon is simply inaccurate/incomplete.

If Yahweh exists, even outside of what we call "time and space", then Yahweh is natural.

So...science of the gaps?

No.  Something can be natural even if it's perpetually beyond our comprehension.

[LadyForCamus]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

Also, would you mind thoroughly finishing out one post before starting more?  You have unanswered questions and discussion points hanging in the "presupposition apologetics" thread that members here have taken the time to participate in.  It's just the curteous and respectful thing to do.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to be giving off any "troll" vibes, am I right?   

[Arkilogue]

So...science of the gaps?

No.  Something can be natural even if it's perpetually beyond our comprehension.

But it would probably be labeled as super-natural before, yes? As in indicating a real phenomenon but dressed up in superstitious terms.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

From long experience the thread will quickly turn to semantics. The argument will be that everything previously thought supernatural later got rolled into natural. Blah blah blah. When in fact the opposite happened. We expanded the definition of natural to encompass previously dismissed phenomena.

[cactus]

No.  Something can be natural even if it's perpetually beyond our comprehension.

But it would probably be labeled as super-natural before, yes?  As in indicating a real phenomenon but dressed up in superstitious terms.

I typically reserve the word supernatural for "x of the gaps" situations, where the people making the claims continue to shift the goalposts in order to stay outside the reach of science.

[Arkilogue]

But it would probably be labeled as super-natural before, yes?  As in indicating a real phenomenon but dressed up in superstitious terms.

I typically reserve the word supernatural for "x of the gaps" situations, where the people making the claims continue to shift the goalposts in order to stay outside the reach of science.

My point is something real may have happened to them that current science cannot yet explain, nor can they, so they default to the mythological explanation handed down to them through time.

[Seraphina]

In my 44 years, I've never seen any "supernatural evidence". Why would I be inclined to believe you have any?

[chimp3]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

I will not "declare neutrality"! I will not "declair nuetrality" either! I will go down with my ship! I state emphaticically there are no gods.

Now , are you asking if I am open to "supernatural evidence" or "evidence for the supernatural"? The latter seems an oxymoron to me.